Standing Committee D

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Civil Partnership Bill [Lords]

Roger Gale: Before we start, I wish to say that I can have no interference whatever in this Committee from the Public Gallery. If there is any communication with those in the Gallery in this Room, rather than outside, I shall have no alternative but to clear the Gallery. I am sorry to start on such a fierce note, but it is necessary that we get the ground rules right.
 Hon. Members may remove their jackets if they wish. The other housekeeping matter is that Officers of the House are looking for the key to open the window to bring down the blinds. That may happen during the course of our proceedings, so that Members on one side of the Room are not blinded. There might be a slight degree of disruption, but I am sure that hon. Members can live with that. 
 The Programming Sub-Committee met last night, and I propose to deal with the outcome of its deliberations first, as is set out in the order of business in any event. I shall then make a couple of what I hope will be relevant comments to assist Members in the governance of the further business when it resumes. 
 Motion made, and Question proposed, 
That— 
 1. during the remaining proceedings on the Civil Partnership Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee shall meet— 
 (a) on Thursday 21st October at 9.10 am and 2.30 pm; 
 (b) on Tuesday 26th October at 9.10 am and 2.30 pm; 
 2. remaining proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the Table below and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table. 
 TABLE 
 Proceedings 
 Time for conclusion of proceedings 
 Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 36, Schedules 2 to 4, Clauses 37 to 70, Schedule 5, Clause 71, Schedules 6 to 8, Clauses 72 to 80, Schedule 9, Clause 81, Schedule 10, Clause 82. 
 6.30 pm on Thursday 21st October. 
 Clauses 83 and 84, Schedule 11, Clauses 85 to 122, Schedule 12, Clauses 123 and 134, Schedule 13, Clauses 135 to 141, Schedule 14, Clauses 142 to 189, Schedule 15, Clause 190, Schedules 16 to 18, Clauses 191 to 199, Schedule 19, Clause 200, Schedule 20, Clauses 201 to 205, Schedule 21, Clauses 206 to 237. 
 11.25 am on Tuesday 26th October. 
 Clauses 238 and 239, Schedule 22, Clause 240, Schedule 23, Clauses 241 to 244, Schedule 24, Clauses 245 and 246, Schedule 25, Clause 247, Schedule 26, Clauses 248 to 251, Schedules 27 to 29, Clauses 252 to 254, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill.—[Jacqui Smith] 
 5.00 pm on Tuesday 26th October.

Christopher Chope: I have not seen a copy of the motion. I am sure I am at fault for that, but it seems to me that members of the Committee who are not privileged enough to be members of the Programming Sub-Committee were not notified that that Committee was meeting and were not notified of the outcome.
 I have all the material that was before me at the end of the previous sitting, when I was in the middle of speaking to some amendments. The Minister has moved the motion formally without telling anyone on the record or otherwise what its contents are. I am therefore in no position to address it, but I suspect that it will contain things that those of us who are concerned about some of the contents of the Bill will find objectionable. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has a copy of the motion that I can look at.

Roger Gale: The Programming Sub-Committee is open to Members as observers, even if they are not members of that Committee. I am not privy to what notice was given to whom concerning a sitting of the Sub-Committee, but the fact is that the deliberations of that Committee are open to all Members. I should also point out that the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee is the first item on today's amendment paper, which has been available on the Table in this Room for a number of minutes.

Christopher Chope: I now have a copy of the resolution in front of me. You say quite rightly, Mr. Gale, that it is possible for members of this Committee to attend the Programming Sub-Committee, but how are they expected to attend it if they do not know that it is sitting? That is the nonsense that we have got. Normally, the rules of natural justice ensure that people who have an interest in something are notified of its taking place and are given the opportunity to find out what is happening. However, since the Minister has declined to speak to the resolution, perhaps I should tell hon. Members exactly what it has resolved.
 The Programming Sub-Committee has resolved that, during the remaining proceedings on the Civil Partnership Bill, the Standing Committee shall meet today at 9.10 am and 2.30 pm, and on Tuesday 26 October at 9.10 am and 2.30 pm, and that the remaining proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the table. A series of knives have been imposed by the Government to prevent discussion from taking its natural course, which means that by 5 pm today, the proceedings on clauses 1 and 2, schedule 1, clauses 3 to 36, schedules 2 to 4, clauses 37 to 70, schedule 5, clause 71, schedules 6 to 8, clauses 72 to 80, schedule 9, clause 81, schedule 10 and clause 82 shall all have been determined. 
 Several points arise from that. Why should the cut-off point be 5 o'clock? The House sits until 6.30 pm on a Thursday, so why should we cut off debate on the Bill so early on a Thursday afternoon? All this is taking place on a day on which the conduct of Members of Parliament and the value for money that they provide are on the public record and in the public eye. I would have thought that if hon. Members on this Committee supported a motion effectively 
 curtailing the opportunity for debate on this important Bill, which affects so many millions of people, it would send out the wrong message to the general public about the value for money that they obtain from Members of Parliament. 
 There is a subsidiary part of the motion that says that a series of clauses should have been disposed of by 11.25 on Tuesday 26 October. The only part of the motion that I support is that which extends the number of sittings to include one on Tuesday 26 October in the afternoon, until 5 o'clock. I raised that point on the last occasion when this matter was discussed. The Government gave no ground then, but I am glad that they have done so now. It is wholly unreasonable of them, however, to seek to impose these knives in the programme motion. I do not know whether it is open to me to move an amendment to the motion, but if it were, I would want to amend it to remove the knives from the individual days, while agreeing to the sitting until 5 o'clock on Tuesday 26 October, on the basis that a little extension is better than nothing. 
 I find the Government's whole approach perplexing. I thought that we were talking about issues that are not party political, but which will fundamentally alter the nature of marriage and relationships. I have some serious amendments for discussion, and so have other hon. Members. The Government have also tabled a series of amendments. Why are we not being allowed to debate them in the way that we wish? I would like to move an amendment along the lines that I mentioned, if that is in order, Mr. Gale.

Roger Gale: I have taken on board the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about notice being given to Members of the sittings of the Programming Sub-Committee. There is no procedure for that to happen, but he makes a fair point and I will report it faithfully to the Chairman of Ways and Means to see whether notice can be given to members of the Committee on the understanding that they would be able to attend only as observers, and not to speak or vote.
 The hon. Gentleman is entitled to move a manuscript amendment to the motion, but I must have it on the Table, in writing. I cannot accept a verbal manuscript amendment. The two things are not compatible.

Jacqui Smith: I am glad that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) recognises that the Sub-Committee has proposed an additional sitting for the consideration of the Bill. Given that, in the original Programming Sub-Committee, Members—and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in particular—made it clear that it would be possible to reconsider the timing if we did not make the progress that we wanted to achieve, I think that it is a reasonable compromise to have extra time on Tuesday afternoon in which to ensure that the Bill gets the scrutiny that it deserves.
 However, it is also fair to say that we need to balance the extra time that has been given to the Committee with an assurance that there will be proper scrutiny of all aspects of the Bill. In the first two and half hours or so of consideration, we got through only one set of amendments to the first clause. Despite the fact that those amendments were significant, and that it was a very important debate, that suggests that we were potentially in danger of not getting on to the other clauses. 
 I wish to highlight for Committee members the fact that we have the opportunity this morning and this afternoon to give considerable attention to the heart of the Bill's principles, which are included in parts 1 and 2. It is also important—we were in danger of not achieving this—that we can also consider the parts of the Bill dealing with the Scottish and Northern Irish provisions. Although the principles might be the same, some hon. Members might want to explore how we have ensured throughout the Bill recognition of the particular legislative history and structure in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In allocating a sitting for that debate, the Programming Sub-Committee has recognised that that is the case. We will be able on Tuesday afternoon to consider the remaining clauses, including some of the issues that hon. Members will want to consider on benefits and pension provision. 
 We and the Programming Sub-Committee have come up with a solution that extends the time available for the Committee to consider the Bill, focuses attention on ensuring that we cover all the issues and, I hope, focuses hon. Members' attention on speaking to the amendments when they arise. I am not completely sure that that happened in our first sitting on Tuesday. We can now ensure that everyone gives proper consideration to all the issues, and we can also bring the Committee stage to a conclusion at a reasonable time. 
 It is also worth while to record that the Bill has already been scrutinised in the House of Lords. What was interesting there was that the original proposal for some nine Committee sittings was reduced considerably. We have some reassurance from the House of Lords that when people started to get into the detail of the Bill, they recognised that although it contained some significant principles, there was adequate time to scrutinise them. The motion from the Programming Sub-Committee will ensure not only that we give necessary consideration, but that we reach a conclusion at a reasonable point, so that the Bill can, quite rightly, move on to its next stages in the House and beyond.

Roger Gale: The Question under discussion at the moment is that the programme motion on the amendment paper be agreed to. Since then, I have received a manuscript amendment. In view of the fact that the amendment paper was available to Members only first thing this morning, I am minded to accept for discussion that manuscript amendment to the timetable motion. The amendment is debatable within the same half hour, which means that this debate will have to be curtailed at 9.40.
 Manuscript amendment proposed: in line 1 of the table, leave out ''5.00 pm'' and insert ''6.30 pm''.—[Mr. Chope.]

Alistair Carmichael: When I spoke in the Committee about the programme motion on Tuesday, I observed that, given the size of the Bill, although it would be possible to examine it in the time allowed, there would not be much spare time, and that in order to complete a proper examination it would be incumbent on all hon. Members to be responsible in their remarks and not to delay the Committee unnecessarily.
 It is now apparent that certain hon. Members were not minded to proceed in that way. The amount of business that we got through on Tuesday made it inevitable that the Programming Sub-Committee should reconvene, as it did last night. It seems to me that the Government, in making available extra time in an extra sitting on Tuesday, have quite properly recognised that the necessary progress was not made. We need to scrutinise all parts of the Bill, and I am particularly concerned about the parts relating to Scotland, as I am sure other hon. Members are. It is inevitable from the progress that we made on Tuesday that that scrutiny could not be carried out without the insertion of the knives. Accordingly, we should agree to the programme motion without the manuscript amendment of the hon. Member for Christchurch.

Christopher Chope: I hoped that in tabling the amendment I would have the support of the Committee. It seems reasonable that if the House is going to sit until 6.30 pm, this Committee should do so too. As it stands, the motion means that by 5 pm there will be no time for any further consideration of the Bill relating to England and Wales. I do not dispute that it is important to be able to discuss issues relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I look forward to joining in those discussions, notwithstanding that I represent an English constituency, but it would be reasonable to extend today's sitting to 6.30 pm.
 In the good old days, Committees quite often sat until the early hours of the morning, because Members of Parliament thought that their first obligation and responsibility was to scrutinise legislation, whether it was the Finance Bill or any other important measure affecting millions of people. In those days, proper scrutiny was given to legislation, and today we have the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation and send out a signal to the wider public that at least some Members of Parliament are serious about the business and responsibility that they have had imposed upon them by the electorate and want to discuss the Bill in detail and hold this Government to account.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend assure me that, in the event of the Committee voting for his amendment to extend consideration today by 90 minutes, he in turn will undertake to absorb of that 90 minutes only the proportion of time that his membership of the Committee represents?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has had the opportunity to table a lot of amendments, and I do not think that he has tabled any. [Interruption.]
 Perhaps he has tabled one or two, and if so, he will have the opportunity to debate them.
 In the context of what the Minister said, no serious consideration was given in the other place to applying the same principles to opposite-sex cohabitation as apply to same-sex cohabitation. That principle was not debated seriously in the other place, which was more preoccupied with the idea of extending the provisions to people who are partners in an asexual relationship, such as siblings. 
 I have tabled a series of amendments relating to that part of the Bill, and I would have thought that it was reasonable to consider them, because more than 4 million people in England and Wales live in cohabiting relationships, representing about 8 per cent. of the population. Half those cohabiting couples are in the 20 to 34 age group. I make that point with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) very much in mind, as he is as keen as I am to ensure that Conservative Members propose arguments that are relevant to the interests of that group. By contrast with that statistic, there are only 78,522 cohabiting same-sex couples. If one considers the comparison between the numbers in one group and the numbers in the other—

Roger Gale: Order. Until the hon. Gentleman began to explain why he felt it necessary to table his amendments, I was with him. I believe he is now beginning to stray into a much wider debate.

Christopher Chope: I certainly do not want to go into the wider debate, because I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity to do that later, particularly if my amendment is accepted.
 Question put, That the manuscript amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Main Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Roger Gale: We will shortly resume consideration of the Bill. Before we do so, I should like to offer the Committee a thought and a little guidance. It was suggested to me during the sitting of the Programming Sub-Committee that it might be possible to move a motion that the motion be put, because at the moment there is no motion before the Committee that can be closed. There is a procedure called the Golding closure, named after the late John Golding, which allows for that motion to be put, and it is up to the Chairman to determine whether there has been sufficient debate to require that it be put. That is not closure, but simply the putting of the question, after which substantive debate could commence.
 As the Committee would expect, I have studied Hansard very carefully. I have noted that the hon. Member for Christchurch, who is speaking to the lead amendment, has given way to a significant number of Members on a significant number of occasions and that his own contribution to the debate so far has been relatively limited. On that basis, I would not be minded to accept a Golding closure at this point. I shall therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to resume his speech. If at some point further into the debate any hon. Member wishes to consider moving the Golding closure, I will shall be prepared to consider the matter at the appropriate time.

Clause 1 - Civil partnership

Amendment moved [19 October]: No. 183, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out 'of the same sex'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Roger Gale: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 185, in clause 4, page 3, leave out line 1. 
 Amendment No. 229, in clause 254, page 125, line 31, leave out 'Civil' and insert 'Same Sex'.

Christopher Chope: Thank you for those remarks, Mr. Gale. To remind hon. Members, the amendment would have the effect of removing the words ''of the same sex'' from line 5 of the clause, thereby ensuring that the Bill could apply to cohabitees of the same sex and of the opposite sex. I am grateful to the Minister for circulating the letter, which she sent on 29 July to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As I mentioned during the previous sitting, the Minister's response to the concerns expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights is highly material to our deliberations. Several of us are concerned about discrimination that would offend against human rights legislation being introduced by Parliament into the legislation.
 The first four questions raised by the Joint Committee concern the Government's justification for limiting the eligibility to form a civil partnership to same-sex couples. The Joint Committee expressed its concern that the exclusion of opposite-sex couples from entitlement to participate in a civil partnership would be inconsistent with the European convention on human rights. 
 Hon. Members will have read the Minister's response and attempt to argue that the concerns of the Joint Committee are not well founded in law. As this is a highly contentious area that goes to the root of whether the exclusion of opposite-sex partners from civil partnerships is discriminatory and, if so, whether such discrimination can be justified, I would like hon. Members to consider the detail of the Minister's legal case. 
 In five and a half pages of detailed argument, it is apparent that the Government's position that the Bill as drafted is not discriminatory is based upon a false premise. If the Bill were about establishing homosexual marriage on a par with heterosexual marriage, the arguments put forward by the Government would carry. However, as the Minister has been at pains to explain, the Bill does not create same-sex marriage but only what it describes as civil partnerships. 
 Turning to the Minister's commentary on the decision of the Canadian court in Miron v. Trudel, she says that the majority in the court emphasised that a distinction may probably be made between 
''those who decide to marry and those who do not and that the choice made by the couple in question must be paramount''.
 The Minister then refers to the fact that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has confirmed that it is compatible with convention rights for contracting states to treat married couples differently from couples who do not marry, as is acknowledged in paragraph 23 of the Joint Committee's report. But then she goes on to state: 
''Unmarried couples (including opposite-sex couples who could not marry because they could not divorce; opposite-sex couples who chose not to marry when they could have done so; and same-sex couples) have all been held not to be comparable to married couples.''
 That is the point. The Minister cites several cases in support of her proposition: Shackell v. UK, Quintana Zapata v. Spain, Saucedo Gomez v. Spain, Mata Estevez v. Spain and Karner v. Austria. Those cases support the proposition that it is perfectly all right under human rights law for marriage to be treated separately from other relationships, but it is not all right that relationships outside marriage should be treated in a discriminatory way. That is what the Bill does: it picks one type of relationship outside marriage—same-sex cohabitation partnership—and gives it an elevated legal status compared with the cohabitation partnership of people who are of the opposite sex in a relationship outside marriage. 
 The Joint Committee was concerned about that, and that is why I believe that, on the evidence supplied by the Minister and in the light of the legal authorities, the Bill would be discriminatory if enacted according to the Government's wish. There is no proper justification for discriminating in the way that the Government propose in favour of same-sex partnerships over opposite-sex partnerships. 
 We had a short debate on the sittings motion. Again, it is significant that the Minister did not give any justification as to why she and her colleagues were not prepared to sit between 5 pm and 6.30 pm. If she had brought forward some arguments, they could have 
 been considered and weighed up, but there were no supporting arguments, just an assertion that ''We're the Government. We're right. We've decided we must finish at 5 o'clock.'' 
 However, the issue of human rights and discrimination is one that I should have thought that the Minister would be much more concerned about than seems, at the moment, to be the case. Unless my amendments are accepted, under this legislation unmarried same-sex couples will be in a privileged position compared with other unmarried couples. 
 At the time of the 2001 census, there were 78,522 people cohabiting in same-sex relationships. That represented 2 per cent. of all cohabitees and 0.2 per cent. of the population. The same census showed that more than 4 million people were living in cohabiting relationships in England and Wales—or 8 per cent. of the population. So, unless amended, the Bill will potentially give an elevated status to that entire group of 78,000 cohabitees in a same-sex relationship, although we know that only a small proportion of them will take up the option of a partnership. It would discriminate against the 4 million people living in cohabiting relationships for whatever reason.

Alan Duncan: What is my hon. Friend's estimate of the number of those in cohabiting opposite-sex relationships who are discriminated against because they are prohibited from marrying unless that prohibition is because they are in an adulterous relationship? Adulterous relationships are not something that he wishes to encourage.

Christopher Chope: I certainly do not wish to encourage adulterous relationships, and I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to do that either. The short answer is that I do not know how many of that 4 million fall into that category, but I do not think that my hon. Friend is comparing like with like. If the Bill were proposing same-sex marriage, his argument would carry weight because, under human rights law, it is possible to set up marriage and discriminate against relationships outside marriage. However, the Government are legislating specifically to set up a relationship outside marriage that will have a legal status superior to other relationships outside marriage.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend says that those in a cohabiting relationship are being discriminated against because they are unable to marry. They can marry if they are divorced or are free to marry. The only basis on which they might be discriminated against in law, and thereby unable to marry, is if they are not divorced or are in an adulterous relationship. Both of those situations undermine the institution of marriage that he is trying to protect. How can he say that we are not comparing like with like when, clearly, he is not doing so?

Christopher Chope: Unfortunately, the law seems to support my argument rather than that of my hon. Friend. I cited some of the authorities. That is the law as it stands. I challenge my hon. Friend to show, based on the authorities that I cited, any reason why he thinks that it would be lawful discrimination to allow some people in partnerships, namely same-sex partnerships, to be in a privileged position compared
 with others—those who are in opposite-sex partnerships. If one considers the case law, one discovers that one of the breakthroughs for those in cohabiting relationships came when somebody challenged the right of a survivor to inherit a tenancy. The law was originally extended to cohabitees of opposite sexes. It was then challenged by cohabitees of the same sex, who said that they should be put on an equal basis.
 That is the law—that relationships outside marriage should be treated equally. The Bill gives one particular type of relationship outside marriage a superior position.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is contorting himself somewhat. He keeps talking about the elevated status of same-sex couples. Can he not understand the rather simple point that cohabiting heterosexuals have the right to marry whereas gay couples do not? That is unless my hon. Friend is suggesting that gays should dishonestly marry, which no one, I think, would seriously argue. All that the Bill seeks to do is to redress the balance and remove that injustice.

Christopher Chope: I hear what my hon. Friend says on that, but as the Joint Committee on Human Rights has reported, and as is referred to in one of the Canadian cases, there are many people in heterosexual cohabiting relationships who, for whatever reason, do not wish to get married. The law is that people in cohabiting relationships outside marriage should be treated equally. If the Bill were to create homosexual marriage in law—I think that my hon. Friend might be in favour of that—I would not have an argument on this point of discrimination. However, it does not create homosexual marriage, and perhaps in due course we will find out why the Government do not want it to do so. What it creates is a legal framework for a partnership outside marriage, which will be superior to a partnership of others involved in heterosexual relationships.
 If one examines the legal authorities and the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, one can see that they share my concern, as do many people outside this House. I predict that if this Bill goes through in its present form, in due course the Government will find themselves forced by the courts to accept that it unlawfully discriminates against opposite-sex cohabitees, who will not be able to enjoy the civil partnership that the Bill sets up. I look forward to hearing the detailed legal response to my amendment from the Minister.

Alistair Carmichael: I welcome the hon. Member for Christchurch to the side of the angels as far as human rights arguments are concerned.

Angela Eagle: It is only a brief visit.

Alistair Carmichael: I hope not. I hope that we are able to keep the hon. Gentleman with us. It would certainly make everyone's life an awful lot easier.
 However, if the hon. Gentleman goes beyond the rubrics in the case law to which he has just referred, he will find that courts take a very different approach to 
 that which he has outlined to the Committee today. The courts do not obsess with labels in the way that the hon. Gentleman seems to do; they look at outcomes. They will say that the outcome for a heterosexual unmarried couple is that they have the full range of rights available to them by entering into civil marriage. In my view, that is why there is no compelling human rights argument that says that the provisions of this Bill should be made available to heterosexual unmarried couples.

Alan Duncan: The broad thrust of the amendment is essentially to reintroduce through the back door the polluting elements of the amendment moved in another place by Baroness O'Cathain. It would corrupt the Bill and destroy the shape and integrity of its principal purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch says that the amendments that he has tabled throughout the Bill can perhaps be adapted the better to improve it, but I think that they are designed in many respects to destroy the Bill. My personal view is that his amendments cannot be improved; they can only be removed. It is similar to what someone once said of communism. It is like lacing a drink: the amendments are a drop of arsenic in the Bill, which poisons the whole cup.
 Let me address the argument that the inclusion of opposite-sex couples removes discrimination against cohabiting couples. My hon. Friend just argued that, if the Bill were to go through in its original form, under human rights legislation there would be discrimination against cohabiting couples because they would not have the same opportunity that the Bill gives to same-sex couples. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and I have pointed out, and as was said on many occasions in debate on Second Reading and in another place, the principal answer to that point is that opposite-sex couples always have the opportunity of marriage. Should they decide not to marry, that is a matter of choice, rather than discrimination. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch also says—I find this argument peculiarly perverse—that opposite-sex couples are denied the opportunity to have some kind of partnership when they are in a position in which they cannot marry. The reason why they cannot marry is that there is something in law that, for a good reason, prevents them. They may already be married; that is the most likely reason. Their divorce may not have come through. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said from a sedentary position, they may—this is even more peculiar—be members of the same family and therefore be in an incestuous relationship. 
 There are many reasons under existing law why some people who cohabit cannot also enter into a legal arrangement that says that they are partners or husband and wife. In many of the large number of cases in which a woman and a man are living together, which my hon. Friend cited from the census, it may well be because—if I may put it in the vernacular—they are shacking up, having walked out of a marriage that is still in existence. In his attempt to remove what 
 he calls discrimination, he is proposing something that risks fundamentally undermining, and competing with, the institution of marriage, which he has always said, throughout the debate, is something that he wants to protect. 
 The depth of perversity in the logic of my hon. Friend's argument cannot be beaten. Everything that he says is contrary in its effect and practice to what he says that he wants to achieve. If that is the way in which he wants to move amendments in this Committee, it is a pity, because not only is he destroying the Bill, but he is destroying what he says he fundamentally believes in. That is a double whammy of the most perverse sort. I hope that he can see the lack of logic in what he is trying to do.

Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Member for Christchurch has outlined, the first two amendments in the group are intended to allow opposite-sex couples to register as civil partners of each other. He quoted at some length—although selectively—from my preliminary response to the JCHR report. At one point, I feared that he was going to read the whole thing, so I suppose I cannot really criticise him for the selection that he made. However, it would be useful if I outlined to members of the Committee the arguments that I made in that preliminary response as to why the Government do not believe that it is appropriate to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples in the way that the amendments propose.
 The justification for the exclusion of opposite-sex couples encompasses two clear policy reasons, which have been touched on by other hon. Members. First, the purpose of the Bill is to address the disadvantages faced by same-sex couples due to the fact that they are unable to marry. It is not that they choose not to marry, but that it is legally impossible for them to do so. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has pointed out, opposite-sex couples can marry. Any argument that they may wish to make for access to a new form of legal recognition for their relationship must be, therefore, wholly different from the case of same-sex couples to whom marriage is absolutely denied. That is not to say that there is no argument about the rights that should be available to those couples who cohabit, but it must be wholly different from that made by same-sex couples, who have no opportunity to establish legal recognition of their relationships. That is the first policy reason for our approach in the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister answer the question about why the Government are not legislating for homosexual marriage? If they did that, the problems that I have described would not exist.

Jacqui Smith: As we said on Second Reading, our approach to the legal situation is to say, ''Let us devise a 21st century way, a new legal relationship, which recognises the legal difficulties and sensitivities that perhaps not everybody in this Committee may share but certainly many people with religious views would share, about the particular historical traditions of marriage that might make it inappropriate for there to be same-sex marriages.'' We have identified where the mischief stands, as the lawyers describe it, and that is the legal invisibility of people in same-sex couples. We
 are attempting to remedy that through the Bill, and our approach received widespread support throughout the consultation period. Stonewall, for example, recognises it as the 21st century, modern way to deal with that particular problem.
 The second reason for the Government's approach is our view that for opposite-sex couples marriage is the best framework for stable family relationships. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. The irony of his position is that he would want the state to sanction another form of legal relationship for opposite-sex couples that could be seen only as being in direct competition with marriage. It is a deep irony that those people who hold marriage so dear and consider it to be so important at the same time argue for a legally recognised, state sanctioned relationship in direct competition with it. The Government do not want to do that.

Christopher Chope: Does the Minister agree that heterosexual couples sometimes choose not to marry for very personal reasons of conscience and belief, such as, for example, the historical implication of the term ''marriage'' and the historical nature of the institution in which the woman was treated as property?

Jacqui Smith: I do not think that modern marriage treats women as property, but of course there are a whole range of reasons why people might choose not to marry just as there will be for people who choose not to enter into a civil partnership. The point is that in an opposite-sex relationship, one has that choice; in a same-sex relationship, one does not. This Bill is about putting right that inequality.

John Bercow: Does the Minister not think it both bizarre and unsatisfactory that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has still failed to explain how and why civil partnership for gay couples undermines marriage but civil partnership for heterosexual, cohabiting couples does not?

Jacqui Smith: Yes, it is bizarre. I have nothing to add; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
 I move on to some of the legal arguments that the hon. Member for Christchurch made. On Second Reading and again today, he suggested that it was discriminatory for legislation to favour married couples or those in a legally recognised relationship. He quoted from the interim report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and he referred in particular—as he has today—to the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in the case of Miron v. Trudel. 
 However, the hon. Gentleman did not outline the context and content of that case, and we should be clear about that. It was about financial support under an insurance policy where a spouse was injured in a motor accident. The court found, by a majority of five to four, that there was no justification for the legislature to have restricted the benefits of the legislation in question to married couples to the exclusion of unmarried opposite-sex couples. 
 That case was not about eligibility to form a particular kind of legal relationship; it was about the appropriate allocation of a particular benefit as between couples in a formal relationship and those who were not in such a relationship. Therefore, it is not clear that even that case supports the hon. Gentleman's contention. Furthermore, he did not go on to add that, in any event, in a more recent decision in the case of Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh—which I put in my letter—the same court reached a different conclusion, and with only one dissenting judgment, so that was a very clear majority. This time, considering legislation on the division of matrimonial property, the court emphasised that a distinction may very properly be made between those who decide to marry and those who do not. 
 It is likely that the European Court of Human Rights would follow the latter approach. As the Joint Committee's interim report recognised, the Court has confirmed that it is compatible with convention rights to treat married couples differently from couples that do not marry.

Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appropriate comparison is between civil partners and spouses and those who could form civil partnerships but have not done so and those who could form married partnerships and have not done so? To do that would be better than mixing the two in this mischievous way.

Jacqui Smith: I do agree. I was going to make precisely that point; my hon. Friend has spelled it out admirably.
 Leaving that aside, this Bill is about a new, formal legal relationship that also requires the agreement of both parties. For those couples that do not marry because one partner does not wish to—that example has been used—the availability of civil partnership would be unlikely to help. In other words, the idea that people who do not want to enter into a significant legal relationship with rights and responsibilities as represented by marriage—there could be all sorts of reasons why that would be the case—would then want to enter into civil partnership, which is a very similar legal relationship with very similar rights and responsibilities, is not tenable. If people are not willing, for whatever reason, to take on those legal responsibilities in marriage, they will be unlikely to want to do so in civil partnership. For example, where one person in an opposite-sex couple does not wish to shoulder the financial responsibilities that flow from marriage, it would be highly unlikely that they would want to form a civil partnership with similar rights and responsibilities. 
 If couples choose not to marry for reasons of personal belief or conscience—we have touched on that—that is a matter entirely for them, not for Government. However, although I do not think that the hon. Member for Christchurch has expressed himself well today, others have explained their concerns about the particular practical problems that people who choose to cohabit can find themselves in, and I am not unsympathetic to their point of view. 
 Therefore, it might be worth while to draw hon. Members' attention to the range of work that the Government are undertaking on cohabitation issues.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister share my view that the hon. Member for Christchurch is missing the point? The debate we are having might make people in opposite-sex relationships who currently choose not to marry consider whether the legal protection outside marriage is adequate, and, by comparison, more of them may actually choose to marry. Therefore this debate is helping his cause rather than undermining it.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The first strand of work with respect to cohabitation should be about raising awareness of the implications of making the choice to cohabit, as opposed to entering into a legal relationship. It was unfortunate that during the last sitting the hon. Member for Christchurch used the phrase ''common-law marriage'' because there is no such thing. The first strand of work that the Government are undertaking is to dispel the myth of common-law marriage through a public awareness campaign that aims to point out the differences in legal rights between married and unmarried couples. It suggests ways that unmarried couples can protect themselves in the event that their relationship breaks down. That is a practical way to identify those issues and to raise awareness of how they might be overcome.
 The second strand of the work on cohabitation is to ensure that full use is made of those rights and responsibilities that already exist between cohabiting couples. Officials at the Department for Constitutional Affairs and my ministerial colleagues are considering ways of making better use of those provisions. For example, schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 gives courts the power to make property adjustments and to order lump sum or periodical payments for the benefit of children of cohabitant families. However, in 2001, only 428 orders were made under those provisions, compared with 26,627 lump sum and property orders in divorce proceedings. In relation to the protection of the children of cohabiting couples, it may be that more could be done under existing law. I am sure that everyone would consider that a good thing to do. 
 The third strand of the work is to look in more detail at the current law. The Law Commission is considering including opposite-sex and same-sex cohabitation in its next programme of law reform. The project would examine the approach taken in other jurisdictions and options such as the extension of the ancillary relief regime to unmarried couples. 
 That body of work ensures that cohabiting couples who do not marry for whatever reason are made fully aware of the consequences of their choice. It provides them with practical advice and information and enables them to make an informed decision about how to protect themselves and their families from some of the consequences of their unmarried status or, should the Bill be accepted, from some of the consequences of their decision not to enter into a civil partnership. 
 Through the Bill and the accompanying work on cohabitation we are ensuring that the choices made by couples are respected and supported in the most appropriate manner. The difficulty with the amendments, although I recognise that they are caused by concern about the position of cohabiting couples, is that the Bill is not the appropriate place to deal with the issues they cover. I hope that I have given hon. Members some reassurance that the Government take those issues seriously and are engaged in a programme of work to deal with them, but the Bill is about putting right a specific legal difficulty, which is the lack of any opportunity to gain legal visibility for a same-sex relationship. That is what the Bill is aimed at putting right and the basis on which it has been designed. I believe that to be the fundamental basis on which we should proceed and I therefore ask hon. Members to reject the amendment. 
 Briefly, the third amendment would change the short title to the ''Same-Sex Partnership Bill''. In fact the term ''civil partnership'' was one of the points on which we consulted. It has gained wide currency in the community and the wider public arena. The term properly reflects the secular status of civil partnerships and I cannot see any reason to think again about the point. In fact is that the hon. Member for Christchurch precisely identified that he wanted to change the title only to pursue a particular point, which I do not believe is valid and nor do other hon. Members. I hope that hon. Members will reject that amendment, but perhaps the Government's commitment to righting the difficulties that the Bill is aimed at righting, and dealing with the issues around cohabiting couples, will leave the hon. Gentleman feeling sufficiently reassured to withdraw his amendments.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for at least responding to the debate, which is a useful precedent. On the title of the Bill, she will know that a Bill before the other place introduced by Lord Lester of Herne Hill was entitled ''Civil Partnerships Bill''. That dealt with setting up civil partnerships for same-sex and opposite-sex couples who wished to have a registration system outside marriage, and it received very favourable comments from the then Leader of the House of Lords, the late Lord Williams of Mostyn. Similarly, a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) under the ten-minute rule procedure talked about civil registration and was intended to apply to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
 Civil registration or civil partnership implies partnership beyond same sex. This Bill again uses the expression ''civil partnership'', although it is singular rather than plural as it was in Lord Lester's Bill. It creates the impression that this is a Bill about partnership of all types, both same-sex and heterosexual, when we know that it is not. If one talks about the need for plain words and language so that people outside can understand what is going on, it would be much better to describe the Bill as what it actually is: a same-sex partnership Bill. I suspect that the Government's motivation is to try to create confusion, to create a euphemism. There might be 
 some people who would regard the expression ''same-sex partnership'' as likely to invite discrimination or even, dare one say it, objection or contempt. However, I take the view that if people want to enter a same-sex partnership, they should do so openly and be proud of it. I am sure that that partnership would then command the respect among other people that it should have, and that I would certainly give it. Perhaps the expression ''common-law marriage'' is, again, a euphemism for people living together outside marriage in an opposite-sex relationship. 
 It is much better for Parliament to legislate openly. If we are talking exclusively about same-sex partnerships—I do not want to limit the Bill in that way, but the Government are insistent on doing so—why do we not grasp the nettle and describe the Bill in its title as a same-sex partnership Bill?

John Bercow: For my own part, I think that ''civil partnership'' is a perfectly adequate, satisfactory and widely supported definition, and I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the expression ''same-sex partnership'' would generally cause hostility, ridicule or contempt. It is only fair, however, to make the point that if on any scale it did so, that would be precisely because of arguments and misrepresentations of the sort that my hon. Friend so enthusiastically peddles.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend does himself no service by trying to be insulting, if that is his intent. As I said at the beginning of my response to the debate, it is not as if I am the first person to come before the House suggesting that we should have a civil partnerships Bill that covers both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. That was what the hon. Member for Reading, East did. It is also what the Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Lester, did in the other place.

Alistair Carmichael: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman is not responding to the debate but is rehearsing the arguments that he put before the Committee. So, in accordance with Standing Order No. 36, I move that the question be now put.

Roger Gale: Mr. Carmichael, you know me well enough to know that, if I thought that the hon. Gentleman was out of order, I would say so.

Christopher Chope: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I am grateful for your protection. I seek to respond to the debate. It has been a good debate and I am sure that people outside the Committee will consider it, because it has some important legal connotations.
 The Minister said that her letter of 29 July to the Joint Committee was a preliminary letter. I do not know whether by that she implied that she intends to send a fuller letter. The letter was pretty long, but if it was just a preliminary letter, I would be interested to see the full letter in due course. I do not know whether this will happen, but I hope that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will produce a further report on the legal issues involved, explaining whether they believe that the prima facie discrimination would be against the European convention on human rights. If they produce such a report, it could inform further debate usefully. 
 I would certainly like the debate about whether the Bill should be extended from the narrow parameters of a same-sex partnership Bill to a Bill embracing legal recognition for a mass of relationships outside marriage—both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships—continued on Report. I think that it goes to the root of the discussion about how we should treat people in different relationships—

Roger Gale: Order. What is discussed on Report is a matter for Report and not for now. Mr. Carmichael sought to move closure of the debate. I took it that Mr. Chope was winding up and for that reason I gave him my protection. I am sure that he is coming to a conclusion and he will no doubt indicate to the Committee whether he wishes to press his amendment to a vote or to withdraw it.

Christopher Chope: Exactly, Mr. Gale. The preamble that I just gave about my view that we need the debate to continue on Report, when the membership of the House will, perhaps, be more representative of society as a whole than is the membership of this Committee, is an indication that I will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment in the hope that we will have a more definitive debate on Report.

Andrew Selous: I share some of my hon. Friend's concerns—I do not believe that the creation of this legal structure is the best way to remedy some of the inequalities and injustices that we talked about. However, I am unable to support his amendments Nos. 183 and 185 because I suspect that, like him, I remember being prepared to vote against the ten-minute rule proposal of the hon. Member for Reading, East—

Roger Gale: Order. I am sorry, but at this stage of the debate the hon. Gentleman cannot use an intervention to seek to widen the debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch is winding up.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). I think that he is saying that he supports my proposal that I should seek leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment. Indeed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Alan Duncan: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, after 'partners'')', insert
'who intend to make a serious, mutually supportive and indefinite commitment'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 193, in clause 9, page 5, line 10, at end insert
'and 
 (c) that each of the proposed civil partners is fully aware of the financial and emotional responsibilities of supporting and caring for the other partner to the civil partnership'.
 Before we start, I indicate to the Committee that, having heard a considerable amount of debate this morning and having read the Official Report of previous debates, it is my view that a debate on clause stand part is most unlikely to find favour with the Chair. Hon. Members may wish to be aware of 
 that in case there are extraneous matters that they wish to tempt my tolerance by seeking to introduce.

Alan Duncan: Amendment No. 13 was tabled by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). It is an attempt to put into page 1 of the Bill a clearer definition of what civil partnerships should be seen to entail. The commitment that is being entered into is far more than merely a financial contract akin to a credit card agreement. It is something that is, and should be, recognised as fundamentally based on a permanent emotional and personal commitment.
 The Bill has no such clear recognition of the nature of the commitment. Unlike marriage, no clear words are spoken in any ceremony. In addition, the Bill does not have any kind of description of what we are understood to be doing in passing this legislation. There is also no recognition of the quality and nature of the personal relationship that we are attempting to recognise. The dignity and equivalence that we are trying to afford people does not receive any explicit description in the Bill. It is important that it should. I do not want to anticipate or link other amendments, but our attitude to this one is linked to amendment No. 14. The Minister's attitude to amendment No. 14, which would allow for some kind of verbal statement of commitment, might influence our decision whether to press this one to a Division. Both amendments are essentially trying to achieve the same thing. 
 What we really want to say is that the commitment is an emotional, not only a financial, one. Amendment No. 193 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Perhaps there is a question mark in the Committee's mind about what he is trying to achieve, and no doubt he will tell us. When he says that he requires partners to be fully aware of the responsibilities of partnership, is he saying that that is because of the financial commitments—which returns us to the equivalence with a credit card or hire purchase agreement—or is he, as I hope he might be, trying to suggest that that is because the relationships are of significant and enduring emotional value?

Christopher Chope: I think that it is very much the latter and that is why the wording of my amendment is taken directly from the Bill that was produced in the other place by Lord Lester.

Alan Duncan: I certainly think that the Committee will be heartened to hear my hon. Friend specifically and emphatically recognise that such relationships are of enduring and permanent emotional value.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry and I tabled amendment No. 13 because there are severe and lasting consequences of entering into a civil partnership of this sort. Potentially, in its simplest form, one can see that, as in marriage, assets and ownership are pooled and that the relationship can be separated only by a process of dissolution, which in many ways is akin to divorce. The nature of that relationship must be fully understood. I think that it is, in the mind of any couple that may be contemplating 
 entering into it once the provision goes on to the statute book, as I hope it does. However, nothing in the Bill properly and explicitly describes the nature of the relationship that is being entered into. 
 I will not discuss amendment No. 14 in detail, but it is linked. The possible alternative to the one that we are discussing is that in the ceremony by which two partners have their partnership registered, there can at least be provision for, if not the compulsion for, some kind of verbal statement, which is not in itself the contract, as it would be in marriage. In the form of a ceremony with witnesses, it is a memorable event that clearly states the nature of the relationship and commits each of the two partners to it. 
 The debate is whether we put that in the Bill under the clause, or by some other vehicle, which the Committee would then approve. The Minister might persuade me that it is not necessary to put it in the clause because it will be covered satisfactorily by the Committee's agreement to a later clause; that would be an adequate substitute. 
 At the very least, I hope that the Minister and the Committee will agree that, somehow and somewhere, there should be clear expression and detail given of the nature of the partnership that the Bill provides. It should clearly recognise that we are not just talking about some sort of trust deed, or a financial contract or ownership and tenancy terms that benefit the two people who enter into them; the partnership should be specifically recognised as a bond between two people who are committing themselves to each other in a permanent and enduring emotional, loving—

John Bercow: Would my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
Mr. Duncan—comma.

John Bercow: I understand the purport of the amendment but, to play devil's advocate for a moment, is it not at least arguable that the thrust of his concern is reflected already in subsection (3), where reference is made to the fact that the
''civil partnership ends only on death, dissolution or annulment''?
 Does not that underline the serious character of the responsibility into which people are entering?

Alan Duncan: No, because that subsection defines the relationship's conclusion, not its origins, and it is the origins that are the foundation of the value of the Bill. The origins are essentially that two people love each other. One could say of a trust signed by a duke and his heir to keep a big house in the family that it ends only on death, dissolution or annulment. Those are essentially contractual terms, rather than the basis for a relationship. I maintain that the absence of a clearer description in the Bill, or of provisions for the ceremony that derives from it, reduces the purpose of what we are trying to achieve.

Chris Bryant: I am sympathetic to much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, not least as under clause 3 we will discuss—through his amendments and some of my own—whether there should be some celebration and what kind of wording should be used. Might he accept that the words of the amendment might seem a little patronising and
 condescending to those choosing to enter into a civil partnership? When people get married, the law does not specify that they have to be mutually supportive and so on. It seems a little condescending to put that in the Bill.

Alan Duncan: I do not think that there is anything patronising or condescending about what I suggest, although there is something different about it. If I may argue against myself, one could say that when the banns of marriage are read in a church, there is no requirement to state the sort of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry mentioned. In that sense, there is a difference in what I propose, but I do not think that it amounts to discrimination, because I am trying to find some parallel and equivalent, and some method of giving a civil partnership a properly recognised status in law while admitting its emotional, as well as its contractual, content. I think that that is missing. I admit that the Minister might yet persuade me, if she shows that somehow, somewhere, there will be a vehicle for doing that.
 To be honest, I am not enormously fussy about how we do what I suggest. The amendment may be a clumsy way to achieve what I want, and amendment No. 14 may be a much better way. However, I hope that the Minister can say that she is prepared to recognise—whether in the ceremony, in a form of words or in a clause—the emotional and personal nature of the relationship; otherwise, we are omitting from the Bill something that it is important to include somewhere. If we do not include it, many will argue that the Bill is not achieving the equality and the equivalence that those of us who support it believe it should.

Christopher Chope: I am tempted by my hon. Friend's amendment. The fact that I have tabled an amendment that is worded differently does not mean I would not support his amendment if it were put to a vote. My amendment is based on clause 3(4)(d) of the Civil Partnerships Bill introduced by Lord Lester of Herne Hill. His concern was that if people entered into partnerships and the registration process, they should be fully aware of the consequences. That is why my amendment refers to both financial and emotional responsibilities.
 The provision in Lord Lester's Bill referred to the ''gravity'' of those financial and emotional responsibilities. I have not referred to gravity because that should be taken for granted. My amendment is slightly more simple. Given that we are discussing the endorsement of long-term relationships, surely it goes without saying that there should be a need for the parties involved to be fully aware of the financial and emotional responsibilities of supporting and caring for the other partner to the civil partnership. 
 If the hon. Member for Rhondda finds that too patronising, I am disappointed. On Tuesday, he said that he would give advice to a potential partner to a religious marriage if he considered that they might be a little naïve about their fitness or about whether the nature of their relationship was such that it would be 
 sustainable in the long term. Well, in the absence of someone like him to obtain counsel from, making the declaration in writing—pretty small beer—should be a minimum requirement. That is why I tabled the amendment, although I am also attracted to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Government will give us some ground on these matters.

Alistair Carmichael: I, too, am not without sympathy for the motive of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton in tabling his amendment. On balance, however, his amendment No. 14 would probably be a better way in which to achieve such an outcome than the form of words that we are discussing now. Anyone entering into a civil partnership would be expecting to
''make a serious, mutually supportive and indefinite commitment''.
 In the course of practising as a solicitor dealing with divorce cases, I often had cause to muse that making divorce more easily obtainable was something that I would support, but that the only significant change that would meet the difficulties arising as a result of some divorces was to make marriage more difficult. That is why I have sympathy for the motivation behind the amendment. However, I am not willing to go with the hon. Gentleman for several reasons. It is apparent that what the Government have sought to do in drafting the Bill with some exceptional care is reproduce in civil partnership the same rights, responsibilities and procedures as those that are available to people who are entering civil marriage. Such people do not have to meet the test. Unless and until we find a foolproof, safe means of making those people go over such a hurdle, people entering a civil partnership should not have to do so. 
 As a former lawyer, I can see a new earning opportunity opening in front of me, should the good people of Orkney and Shetland choose to dispense with my services after the next election. The definitions of ''serious'', ''mutually supportive'' and ''indefinite'' could be a dripping roast for many of us for a long time to come. However, I am not here to further the professional standing or practice of my former colleagues. My job is to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose. 
 There is potential for challenges from the parents. Let us return, for instance, to the examples given by the Minister about the person who is in hospital and whose homosexual partner is denied rights of access. The rights of a party to a civil partnership in that circumstance might be open to challenge because the basis of the partnership itself could be challenged. There is already a substantial body of case law on what constitutes a void or a voidable marriage, and there would be an even more substantial body of case law in respect of civil partnerships. Case by case, they would be much more open to challenge on the basis that there was some fundamental nullity in their constitution if it could be demonstrated that a partnership was not mutually supportive. That is but one example. 
 For those reasons, although I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman's motivation, I believe that practical and serious problems would arise if the amendment 
 were agreed to. Accordingly, although I would be with him on amendment No. 14, I am not with him on these amendments.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I am concerned that the amendment would move the definition of civil partnership much closer to the concept of marriage, and although I understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton in tabling it, I think that anything that moves civil partnership closer to the concept of marriage is of concern to many of us.
 There is an important distinction between marriage and the proposed wording. Marriage is intended to be a lifelong commitment, whereas the amendment confirms the impression that homosexual relationships are transitory; even in relation to a serious, mutually supportive commitment, the hon. Gentleman thinks that the best that same-sex couples can aspire to is an indefinite commitment. It is hardly high romance to say, ''Darling, I love you and I want to make an indefinite commitment to you.'' Does that mean it would last until a better offer came along? I hope that he will reflect on that.

Alan Duncan: Indefinite is normally taken to mean without end.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Well, I think the hon. Gentleman might have chosen other words to reflect that. I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that this definition could create a lawyer's paradise, because its wording is very loose and the courts might have some difficulty, as we have had, in interpreting what words such as ''indefinite'' mean.

Jacqui Smith: I share the view of most of the members of the Committee who have spoken to amendment No. 13, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton. In no way do I oppose the intention behind the amendment, which he spelled out. In fact, I am delighted that so many hon. Members in this Committee and on Second Reading readily identified with the Government's aims in introducing the legislation.
 Civil partnership has been designed exactly because there are same-sex couples in serious, mutually supportive relationships of indefinite duration—I tend to agree with the definition given by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton of ''indefinite duration''—who deserve to have their relationship recognised in law. People now and in the future will share their lives and homes, and they will intend to love and care for each other during the whole of their lifetime. Until now, they had no way of having their relationship recognised. That is what the Bill is about. 
 Of course, that is the equivalent of what we expect of people who enter into and continue in marriage. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, we take that for granted for civil marriage. Although there are no words that represent that type of commitment in civil marriage legislation or, to a certain extent, even in the civil marriage registration process, we do not therefore assume that that is not 
 part of the marriage. That is the slight difficulty with amendment No. 13. The seriousness of the commitment being made is clearly illustrated by reference to the significant rights and responsibilities that will apply to same-sex couples who decide to register as civil partners. 
 The hon. Member for Buckingham is right about the legal requirements for bringing such a relationship to an end. It is a serious legal undertaking, not something that someone can drift in and out of, and serious legal rights and responsibilities are associated with the whole of it.

Alan Duncan: I apologise for interrupting the Minister. She is probably coming to this issue, given that there are some interrelated amendments. I am closely following her arguments, as I did those of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and they have considerable merit. None the less, if there is to be a memorable occasion or a proper recognition of the emotional rather than just the contractual relationship in the civil partnership being entered into, can she not accept that somehow, somewhere in the Bill or in a ceremony there must be a recognition or a statement that allows people to appreciate the memorable emotional and personal occasion from which such a partnership arises?

Jacqui Smith: I hope that I shall be able to give the hon. Gentleman at least some reassurance on that point. I share his view about the emotional significance of civil partnerships—it lies behind the intention of the Bill—and I also share his view that the relationship is far more than simply some sort of financial contract. He is absolutely right, but we must also consider the legal implications of accepting this route for identifying the lifelong, mutually supportive nature of the relationship.
 Including the proposed words in the clause would present some difficulties for the Bill. We would face an immediate problem with the practical and legal implications. Even though there are some lawyers on this Committee, I believe that many hon. Members would have sympathy with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who said that the last thing that we want to do is to create jobs and money for lawyers. There is a slight fear, as I will spell out, that we would do that. 
 If the additional words were included in clause 1, they could be interpreted as providing a further eligibility requirement for entering into a civil partnership, but how would we set a common standard to define what they meant ? How would we define ''serious'' and who would decide what constitutes a mutually supportive and indefinite commitment? How would the law test whether both civil partners really had that intention? The inclusion of the additional words could create doubt as to whether a couple are eligible to register as civil partners. 
 Of course, there should be eligibility provisions and the Bill sets them out, but whether the partners are mutually supportive is not one of them. With exception of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley 
 (Mr. Donaldson), probably all of us take the view that that is what people should feel towards each other before they enter into a civil partnership. The question is whether that should be a legal test or hurdle and whether it could practicably be such.

Christopher Chope: Why should mutual supportiveness not be a legal test? The Minister seems to be arguing that she would support civil partnerships when one or more partners do not intend to make a serious, mutually supportive and indefinite commitment. How can she, as a matter of Government and public policy, support the entry into civil partnerships of people who do not comply with that requirement?

Jacqui Smith: I was making precisely the opposite point. The intention is to recognise that many people are already in mutually supportive relationships and to give them legal recognition. The question is what the disadvantages of making that a legal condition would be. Such a condition does not exist for marriage because it would be difficult to define legally and would create an additional hurdle. We may believe in general terms that there should be such a condition, but when one starts to go into the details of law, one sees that it would create an open day for lawyers and do nothing to achieve the objective that we all share in recognising that the relationships that we are discussing are serious.
 The second legal difficulty with the amendment is that the additional words could be seen as a defining element of the new, ongoing legal relationship that constitutes civil partnership. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland touched on that difficulty. If the legal interpretation was that it was an ongoing legal requirement of a civil partnership that it should be mutually supportive, for example, I can imagine the legal difficulties that would arise. I suspect that all of us who have experienced even the very best marriages know that there are occasions, sometimes lasting days and sometimes slightly longer, when it would be difficult to define them as mutually supportive. Things sometimes become tough, but that does not mean that someone should step in and say that the marriage is no longer legally valid. To set in legislation something that could be seen as an ongoing legal requirement would be difficult.

John Bercow: It seems to me a matter of common sense that there is a difference between day-to-day reality and a legally provable fact. Does the Minister not share my concern that the effect of an amendment such as that championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch could be to impose a layer of regulation, scope for public discord and great expense that would be better avoided?

Jacqui Smith: That is partly my argument. There is a distinction between the overall assumptions that we would make for a relationship and the legal details of how that relationship's eligibility requirements, ongoing status and the process of dissolving it would be recognised in law.
 That brings me to the final legal difficulty: if one were not careful, such words would be seen as a further reason for dissolution. We will discuss the reasons for dissolution, but we have quite rightly 
 spelled out the serious legal requirements for bringing the relationship to an end, and the amendment could add an extra reason. To characterise my position, I have considerable sympathy with the intentions of amendment No. 13, but there are times when it is right for the law to be dry and clear. That does not mean the process should be dry, however. 
 The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton pushed me on whether the Government could do anything to ensure that the process of entering into a civil partnership said something about its significance. That issue was raised in the Lords as well. Government amendments Nos. 23 and 25 are intended precisely to ensure that the legal document to be signed by civil partners features some words recognising the seriousness of what is being undertaken and that there is the opportunity for civil partners to speak those words during registration. The words would not have a legal impact, but we want to find a way to include them. I hope that gives him some reassurance. 
 The fact that we have set down legal requirements does not mean that I do not personally hope that there will be some good celebrations and parties. I am angling for some invitations. I expect that there will be some important, moving and enjoyable events. The question is whether it is right to lay down in law what they should be. I do not think it is right because it is too restrictive, but I hope that such events will happen, as they will be in keeping with the legislation's intention. 
 I shall now discuss amendment No. 193, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch. It seeks to add to the declaration to be made by each of the proposed civil partners when he or she gives notice of wanting to enter into a civil partnership. It would mean that each partner had to declare that they and their proposed civil partner were fully aware of the financial and emotional responsibilities of supporting and caring for the other partner. 
 Under clause 9, each party must complete a notice of proposed civil partnership containing a declaration that they believe that there is no impediment to the formation of the partnership and that each of them has had the required period of at least seven days' residence in England or Wales immediately before giving notice. Adding to the notice a declaration relating to the financial and emotional responsibilities involved in a civil partnership is unnecessary. Such a declaration would place on proposed civil partners a requirement that is not placed on opposite-sex couples giving notice of their intention to marry, and it would create the problem of needing to find a way of judging whether proposed civil partners were fully aware of those responsibilities. We hope and expect that they would be.

Chris Bryant: It is a test.

Jacqui Smith: I do not think that my hon. Friend is being serious, but he identifies one of the difficulties in which one might find oneself if one expects potential civil partners to undergo a test to check their declarations. That would not be satisfactory, but we want to ensure that people have every opportunity to
 gain an understanding of what they are taking on by entering into a civil partnership. The Government will consider how to raise awareness of the new legal relationship and the rights and responsibilities associated with it. We will need to do that in the implementation period and to do so specifically for couples, perhaps by providing them with written information when they come to make their notice of declaration. We need to explore all those avenues, but making a legal requirement is unnecessary and could be legally difficult. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Minister for giving us such a comprehensive assessment and explanation. I am largely persuaded by what she has said about the unequal hurdles that the amendment might create in entering a civil partnership; it appears that amendment No. 13 would be unlucky for some. She has adeptly shifted the debate from what is essentially a principle on which all Committee members might be said to agree—amazingly, it does not appear to unite all Committee members—to a discussion that we will come to later when deciding between amendment No. 14 and Government amendment No. 25 in trying to find the best vehicle for achieving the objective. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale: Before we proceed, I inform the Committee that I have had an indication from the hon. Member for Christchurch that he wishes to press amendment No. 193 to a Division. That will fall at the appropriate time in the proceedings, which is not now.
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:— 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Categories of civil partners other than

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 14.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 2 disagreed to. 
 Schedule 1 disagreed to.

Clause 3 - Formation of civil partnership by registration

Alan Duncan: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in
clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert 
 'and has made a spoken declaration of commitment as may be prescribed by order'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in
clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out 'and (4)' and insert 'to (4A)'.
 No. 16, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (5) and insert— 
 '(4A) Each of the civil partners shall, either before or after signing the civil partnership document under subsection (1) and in the presence of the witnesses and the civil partnership registrar— 
 (a) make one of the following declarations: either ''I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I, AB, may not be joined in civil partnership to CD'' or ''I declare that I know of no legal reason why I (name) may not be joined in civil partnership to (name)''; and 
 (b) say to the other civil partner either ''I call upon these persons here present to witness that I, AB, do take thee, CD, to be my civil partner'', or ''I (name) take you (or thee) (name) to be my civil partner''. 
 (4B) Subject to this section, the registration of a civil partnership may be accompanied by such form and ceremony as the civil partners may see fit to adopt.'.
 No. 184, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out from 'used' to end of line 33 and insert 
 'for or in connection with the formation of a civil partnership by registration'.

Alan Duncan: Essentially, this is a continuation of the previous debate. The amendment that I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry is an attempt to include provision for a spoken declaration. We are saying not that that is compulsory and that we will determine the declaration now, but that there should be provision for some turn of phrase such as ''as may be'' determined by order. The key word is ''may''. We are not saying as must be, or as will be. There remains much discretion as to the exact form of words—we will be able to debate that on another occasion—but the amendment specifically includes in the Bill provision for a verbal statement when two people commit to each other.
 One of the key points is that in any contract of this sort uniformity is of value, because through that uniformity the nature of the contract receives widespread and universal recognition. If the decision is left to the arbitrary discretion of the registrar or the local authority, we will end up with a variety of different forms of ceremony. There is profound value in giving shape to the nature of the ceremony that will record the commitment that we are allowing for in the Bill. 
 We all know—the hon. Member for Rhondda more than most, because he has married many couples—the turns of phrase, whatever form of the prayer book they be from, that govern a marriage ceremony. Indeed, those words are the contract. In this case, the signatures rather than the words are the contract, but none the less it is part of an important, emotional day that there is a memorable moment. Spoken words are a far more memorable way of recording a commitment, a ceremony and a change in the phase and stage of two people's life, than a simple signature on a piece of paper. 
 If some shape and uniformity can be introduced into the manner in which the clear commitment that we are providing for is recorded, so much the better. If we include a verbal statement—picking it may require much thought about the language, the poetry and the memorable nature of its turn of phrase—we will be adding to the removal of discrimination, and the provision that the Bill makes, something that will remain in the minds of the two partners for ever and a day. 
 The debate has been shifted down the line from amendment No. 13 to amendment No. 14, and now to amendments Nos. 14 and 25. The Minister would appear to prefer to see this provision as an option in some form of licence. At the moment, I do not sense that that would suffice. However, I shall move on to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda, which are in this group. There is the question of whether there should be any religious content. We have all been at pains to say that the Church should be allowed to determine what the Church wants to do and that we will not impose on it anything that might fetter its decision. It has enough problems as it is trying to come to terms with this difficult issue. 
 At this stage, however, there remains in most of our minds the attempt to try to segregate the secular from the religious so that this is exclusively a secular arrangement. I think that I can see what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. He is saying that if someone in their heart feels that they have a religious belief that goes hand in hand—[Interruption.] He is shaking head, but that is my understanding of his amendment. He will speak to it later. If someone feels that they have a religious belief that goes hand in hand with their commitment, that should not be forbidden, because that would involve us telling them what their religious parameters should be. It is one thing to allow an individual to say, ''I think I am doing the right thing in the eyes of God'', but quite another to say that the Church should be instructed on how to behave or what to believe. 
 With regard to amendment No. 14, the fundamental point is that if we are to ascribe to the moment a civil partnership is entered into the value that most of us in Committee feel attaches to the arrangement that is being made, the absence of a recognised and understood verbal commitment, in a form which in itself becomes increasingly recognised and valued, is a weakness and an omission in the Bill. If we can find by agreement some route to establishing such a recognised verbal commitment, we will have added to the Bill something that it is implicitly thirsting to contain, but somehow does not. I hope that we can find a way of doing that in either amendment No. 14 or amendment No. 25. At present, amendment No. 14 is a better and more positive, assertive vehicle for doing so. Amendment No. 25 appears to contain an arbitrary and permissive element that could allow for all sorts of variants where uniformity would be of great value.

Chris Bryant: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale.
 While I wholeheartedly agree with the direction in which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton is moving, and while I was intrigued to hear what the Minister said about Government amendment No. 25, some specific issues still need to be addressed. 
 Clause 3(5) is more or less, though not directly, lifted from section 45(2) of the Marriage Act 1949, which specifies that no religious service can be used at all when a civil marriage is being officiated. That was introduced for a specific reason; people wanted to differentiate between holy matrimony, which was consecrated in a church, and civil marriage. The difficulty is that many registrars throughout the country now interpret that as meaning that there cannot even be a reading from the Bible or the Torah, or from someone such as Kahlil Gibran, at a civil registration of a marriage—an outdated and bizarre prohibition. I am sure that many of us would not want the law to state that churches should register ''holy matrimony'' in civil registration of a marriage, but to proscribe someone from having any form of religious words being used at all in a civil marriage, such as the use of the word ''God'' or a reference to Jesus. 
 Similarly, although the Government have carefully worded their subsection to say that no 
''religious service is to be used while the civil partnership registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil partnership document'',
 I still think that it is bizarre solely to proscribe the use of religious forms of any sort. I presume that the Minister will say that while the registration is happening there should be nothing of that sort, but the moment the registrar has gone, people can do whatever they want. If that involves bringing in a clergyman, that is entirely up to the clergyman. If people want to have readings or make vows, that is entirely up to them. 
 The phrase that we should be taking from the Marriage Act 1949 is the permissive one, which says explicitly that the form and ceremony that people choose to use at a civil marriage is entirely up to those who take part, apart from a couple of elements that have to be present in the civil marriage. The first of those is the declaration that there is no lawful 
 impediment why those two people may not marry, and the second is the declaration of consent. The 1949 Act has those in more or less prayer book English, along with more modern versions that were added in the 1970s. They are the two elements that I seek to insert into the ceremony. It is not providing a lengthy ceremony; it is simply ensuring that the declaration that there is no lawful impediment to these two people being joined together in a civil partnership, and that they do actually consent, is made in a spoken declaration.

Alan Duncan: Is there not a problem of read-across here? In retaining the distinction between marriage and civil partnership—if that is what we are doing—and recognising that in a civil partnership the contract is the signature rather than the spoken word, the hon. Gentleman is taking the contract from a marriage ceremony and asking for it to be said in a civil ceremony. The point is that asking about just impediment is in the written contract rather than the spoken word in the civil partnership, and he is mixing the two in an increasingly awkward way.

Chris Bryant: I rather disagree, and I think that the hon. Gentleman has become a bit obsessed about the issue of the contract. In a ceremony of holy matrimony—a marriage contracted in a church with a clergyman or clergywoman—the contract is the signing of the register; it is not the ceremony itself. The hon. Gentleman is looking querulous, but I think that I am right about that.
 More importantly, these two declarations will be made in a civil partnership, but they will be made in advance because that is the only basis upon which the partners are then able to sign the document on the day. All I am saying is that I believe that the process of them saying those things out loud and in front of witnesses is a significant part of the process of them making a declaration about their relationship and commitment. It would be more appropriate if witnesses were to hear people saying those two things rather than merely assenting to them, especially as the two partners will have had to have written that they are doing those two things beforehand rather than on the day, and all they then do on the day is sign.

Alan Duncan: Could not then the hon. Gentleman just withdraw his amendment and support mine, because mine allows for both the provision of what he wants and a debate on finding the best form for doing that?

Chris Bryant: Or, alternatively, the hon. Gentleman could withdraw his amendment and support mine; I do not want to be competitive about this, obviously. Many Committee members and—I hope—the Government are trying to arrive at a situation where there is an acceptance that there will be some form of ceremony and that people will have some degree of flexibility.
 I do not want the law to specify what vows people should make to each other, if they want to make vows—some people might not want to make vows at 
 all. I suspect that if we were to go down the route of the hon. Gentleman's spoken declaration of commitment, we would end up with a more comprehensive document than I would like. I would like there to be something that is very limited and that only refers to those two specific things that have to be done in law, so that everything else is then entirely up to the two civil partners, obviously in negotiation with the civil partnership registrar.

Christopher Chope: In order to understand the hon. Gentleman's motivation, will he say whether, in principle, he supports the idea of homosexual marriage, because it appears that his amendment is designed to get as close to that as possible?

Chris Bryant: I was waiting for that; I have here a piece of paper that states, ''Christopher Chope will now say'', and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his predictability.
 My answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not support that; I believe that marriage is an institution that is ordained of God and should be celebrated between a man and a woman. However, I also believe that two men or two women can have a relationship that in many ways mirrors that between a man and a woman but is not identical. Therefore, I believe that we should have in law separate institutions that reflect that reality. The truth is that just because two elements of the ceremonies may be similar, that does not necessarily mean that they are identical, nor that we believe that they should be. I do not think that one is more valuable than the other—they are simply different. Nevertheless, certain elements are needed, notably the declaration of assent and the declaration that people are not barred, by virtue of some legal impediment, from entering into the civil partnership.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman seeks to bring in a religious dimension, or for people to have the opportunity to bring such a dimension to a civil partnership. He has indicated that he does not support the concept of gay marriages, but I am confused. Where does it say in the Bible that there is provision for civil partnerships?

Chris Bryant: Where does it say in the Bible that there should be provision for civil marriage? Where does it say that marriage shall be formed in a particular manner? The Bible says many things. I would be more than happy to debate the moral and ethical rights and wrongs of homosexuality and the interpretation of different passages of the Bible, but now is not the right time to do so.

Roger Gale: Order.

Chris Bryant: As you are about to tell me, Mr. Gale.

Roger Gale: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would find it in order.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful, Mr. Gale.
 It seems bizarre for anybody to argue that people should be proscribed from using any religious words or ceremony. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley may not want to accept the fact, but there are homosexual clergy and bishops, and many homosexual Christians 
 in this land would dearly love their parish priest or minister of religion to join them and say some words and officiate at some form of ceremony. It is, therefore, curious from a libertarian and a Christian perspective that the law should proscribe that.

Christopher Chope: I should like to speak briefly to my amendment No. 184, because, in a sense, the hon. Gentleman has let the cat out of the bag. He referred to the difference between the wording in the Bill and that of the Marriage Act 1949. My amendment would insert the words
''for or in connection with the formation of a civil partnership by registration.''
 Its purpose is to prevent a religious service being conducted before or after the civil partnership registrar has officiated. Without the amendment the way would be open for a religious service to be held in defiance of the Government's avowed intent. The current lacuna in clause 3 should be filled by my amendment, because I do not think that I am unduly cynical in believing that the Government have chosen loose and imprecise wording to facilitate the loophole that amendment No. 16 advances.

Malcolm Bruce: I rise briefly to support amendment No. 14. I do not intend to get into the debate on the religious dimension, because there are two separate issues, as I think the hon. Member for Rhondda would freely admit. However, as things stand, the Bill appears to suggest that two people turn up at an appropriate place and sign a piece of paper, after which they go away formally contracted to be civil partners. If a civil marriage were conducted in that way, many people would feel slightly cheated and the essence or purpose of signing the paper would not have been declared.
 Let us consider a separate situation. Many of us believe that we become Members of Parliament when the returning officer declares that we have enough votes to be the Member returned, but in reality we know that that is not true. We only become MPs when we take the oath or affirmation and sign the book. There are four elected Members of the House who are not MPs because they have not gone through that process. I will not enter that debate, either, because it would be completely out of order. 
 The point is that we recognise, in a number of contexts, that people do not merely sign a contract, but make a verbal declaration about the purpose of the contract and the undertakings in it. That gives the act of signing greater solemnity and underpins the relationship into which they are entering. 
 My point is not only that the amendment, or a Government amendment that we are persuaded will have the same effect, is desirable, but that a civil partnership contracted without any verbal undertakings whatever will not achieve what the Government want, which is—and I have no problem with this—to find a contract that is not the same as, but gives the same benefits, rights and responsibilities as, marriage. Something similar is highly desirable for the declaration. 
 I can tell the Committee—it is no secret—that I have been married twice, the first time in a religious 
 ceremony and the second in a civil ceremony. I was pleasantly surprised that there was a remarkable similarity between the two ceremonies and the undertakings associated; I thought that that was right and proper. If I understand the aspirations of many same-sex couples who want to avail themselves of the benefits of the Bill, many of them feel that there should be a common way, not a prescribed and strictly controlled way, of entering into the contract and the undertaking that would give it the seriousness that we want. I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton on that. Amendment No. 14 meets the objective that his earlier amendment did not. That is why I would be happy to support it.

John Bercow: We observed a brief and good-natured competition between my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton and the hon. Member for Rhondda, each praying in aid his amendment. On this occasion, I am in the peculiar position of arguing the case for a third way. I strongly support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend, but I also strongly support that of the hon. Gentleman. Whether legally it is possible to go for both—and I think that it is, as they relate to different parts of the clause—I do not know; I very much hope that it is. Doubtless we shall be advised on that when we press for a Division. However, the essential difference between the amendments and the amendment that we debated earlier is that those in this grouping do not erect a hurdle; rather, they provide an opportunity.
 A solemn declaration of commitment, and some sort of prescription as to the form of it, is desirable. I shall probably cause the least surprise of anyone who has spoken this morning when I say that I am not able to give my support to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, precisely because it is centrally an obstacle. It is, in my terms, repressive and, if I may say so, deeply centralising.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall not detain the Committee. I have said on a number of occasions, both in Committee and on Second Reading, that, on my analysis, the Government have sought to reproduce, in civil partnerships, provisions relating to civil marriage, warts and all. If that was the approach, it is curious that there is no verbal declaration to be made at the time of entering into civil partnership. For that reason, I have no difficulty in supporting amendment No. 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton.
 Although I do not have any great difficulty with the manner in which the hon. Member for Rhondda sought to place in the Bill the prescribed form of words, which, as he says, is lifted from the Marriage Act 1949 mutatis mutandis, I have some difficulty with proposed subsection (4B) in amendment No. 16, which makes it clear that the form of ceremony is to be read subject to the whole section, which would of course include subsection (5). I can see how the two of them can just about live together, but— 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.